Studying Music 2.0

It's only cool if no one's heard of it.

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
PlayingMonkey
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:45 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere but not here
Contact:

Studying Music 2.0

Postby PlayingMonkey » Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:37 am UTC

This is for everyone currently studying music: What are you studying? What are you playing? What instrument do you play? What's the CTdim4/3 of b minor? What incredibly music geekery are you doing right now?

As for me, I'm studying Clarinet Performance at Oberlin Conservatory, currently playing Daphnis and Chloe and Cosi Fan Tutte (opera coming up), as well as looking at audition materials for summer schools (Chautauqua, Music Academy of the West, etc.) Also I need to figure out what I'm doing for my Junior recital.

XKCD conservatory musicians unite!
I require something interesting here. Alas, I have no intelligence or patience to deal with it.

Quibop

Read my ridiculous blog http://randomlyevolving.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby Dream » Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:37 am UTC

I am studying for an MSc in Digital Composition and Performance. The awesome things they ask me to do everyday are far too numerous to relate here.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
diotimajsh
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:10 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby diotimajsh » Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:11 pm UTC

PlayingMonkey wrote:What's the CTdim4/3 of b minor?
Okay, I give up. The heck is a CTdim (or any kind of CT) chord? Either I've never heard of it, or my memory's getting worse than I thought.

Dream wrote:I am studying for an MSc in Digital Composition and Performance. The awesome things they ask me to do everyday are far too numerous to relate here.
Aww, couldn't you give us a sample, at least?

...(Ha ha, sample, digital audio.... yeah... No, seriously though, I'm like to know a few of the things you're doing.)
Osha wrote:Foolish Patriarchy! Your feeble attempts at social pressure have no effect on my invincible awesomeness! Bwahahahaa


Blog type thing

User avatar
PlayingMonkey
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:45 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere but not here
Contact:

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby PlayingMonkey » Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:41 pm UTC

TIMARA is lols, but to admit it they do some really cool stuff.

CT means common tone chord, such as in the common tone of B minor, which would be C## E# G# B or respelled D F Ab Cb. Basically it extends the tonic/chord, for example I CT I or V CT V.
I require something interesting here. Alas, I have no intelligence or patience to deal with it.

Quibop

Read my ridiculous blog http://randomlyevolving.blogspot.com/

User avatar
diotimajsh
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:10 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby diotimajsh » Wed Oct 07, 2009 1:05 am UTC

PlayingMonkey wrote:CT means common tone chord, such as in the common tone of B minor, which would be C## E# G# B or respelled D F Ab Cb. Basically it extends the tonic/chord, for example I CT I or V CT V.
Oh, okay, thanks. That does sound vaguely familiar, though I think it was only very briefly covered in my theory class.
Osha wrote:Foolish Patriarchy! Your feeble attempts at social pressure have no effect on my invincible awesomeness! Bwahahahaa


Blog type thing

User avatar
Smiling Hobo
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:55 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby Smiling Hobo » Wed Oct 07, 2009 1:32 am UTC

Trying to build up my knowledge of the piano and music theory in general. I've been playing for only about 2 years, but I think I've made good progress. I finished learning "Doctor Gradus ad Parnasum" by Claude Debussy, and am working on "The Snow is Dancing" also by Claude Debussy, though I doubt I'll be able to play it all the way through with confidence or grace for quite a few years, yet. In addition to this, I've been reading some books on music theory (specifically Jazz theory) and just been trying to pick up as many nuggets as possible from my piano teacher. I'd say, at this point, I'm at an Intermediate level, playing and theory-wise. Though I haven't a clue as to what a CTdim4/3 chord is, and your explanation is still leaving me a tad confused. : /

*Nibbles on kitten*
Eat a kitten, save a cow!

User avatar
Ninjew
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:21 pm UTC
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby Ninjew » Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:22 am UTC

Junior Saxophone Music Education Major at Columbus State University, in Columbus, GA. Currently working on the Glazunov Concerto, and I don't particularly like it. However, I've played some great stuff already, like the Creston Sonata, Heiden Sonata, Demersseman Fantaisie, and the Bozza Aria. Hoping to be able to play the Creston Concerto, Desenclos Prelude, Cadence et finale, or the Tomasi Concerto. Also, really into Music Theory. Absolutely love the stuff, and right now working on a Music History paper on Guillaume De Machaut. That's my music experience in a nutshell.

User avatar
Masily box
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:01 am UTC

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby Masily box » Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:46 pm UTC

Why would you put a common-tone dim7 in inversion? Doesn't it make sense to keep the tonic in the bass?

User avatar
Midnight
Posts: 2170
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:53 am UTC
Location: Twixt hither and thither. Ergo, Jupiter.

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby Midnight » Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:05 pm UTC

Masily box wrote:Why would you put a common-tone dim7 in inversion? Doesn't it make sense to keep the tonic in the bass?


occasionally you don't, and keep the common tone somewhere in the main melody section (violins if you're in an orchestra, saxophones if you're in a big band..) for cool tonality stuff. People like to mess around like that.

I play the bass, mostly electric but I can do adequately at pizzicato double bass. I'm pretty shabby with a bow. I'm still in high school but I'm definitely considering majoring in performance, with probably a minor in audio engineering or something. If I don't major in music I'm still getting a minor in performance, heh.

I know enough music theory, but most of it's practical. Modes, scales, etc. I know what inversions are, I know that stuff, but I don't use it too often. Ask me to write a well voice-led contrapuntal piece of insanity and it will be pretty terrible.
uhhhh fuck.

User avatar
ChocloManx
Posts: 656
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:05 pm UTC
Location: Santiago, Chile (nofewdjokezplz)
Contact:

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby ChocloManx » Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:03 am UTC

I'm in the first year of studying composition at the the University of Chile. Right now I'm in school so I could only take three classes: Piano, harmony and theory/solfege. I also play electric guitar to a decent standard but I'm mostly self taught.

Right now I'm writing the music for a short film about cavemen discovering fire. And I'm trying to play a Bach sinfonia with two friends... on electric 8)
Egotist, n. A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me.
-Ambrose Bierce

"My God, all the matter in the universe has just rapidly expanded outward, in some sort of bang."

EduardoLeon
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:26 am UTC
Location: Lima, Perú
Contact:

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby EduardoLeon » Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:35 pm UTC

I've never studied music seriously, but I can play the piano quite decently. I can also play the guitar and the bass, not well enough to actually do a recording or play live, but well enough to write guitar and bass lines. My main strengths are music theory (because I'm mathematically inclined, and music theory is mostly arithmetic modulo 12, setting an arbitrary note (the tonic) as zero) and absolute pitch (I don't know where I got this from, nobody in my family has absolute pitch).

Sometimes I regret not having become a musician.
Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein!

User avatar
scrt_rbt_agnt
douche bag
Posts: 865
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:48 pm UTC
Location: the great secrets of space
Contact:

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby scrt_rbt_agnt » Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:28 pm UTC

how is it too late?
i am a poet and an artist

i don't wanna worry about dyin'
i just wanna worry about sunshine girls

EduardoLeon
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:26 am UTC
Location: Lima, Perú
Contact:

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby EduardoLeon » Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:57 pm UTC

I'm an engineer and have a day work as such.
Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein!

User avatar
scrt_rbt_agnt
douche bag
Posts: 865
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:48 pm UTC
Location: the great secrets of space
Contact:

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby scrt_rbt_agnt » Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:58 pm UTC

woohoo i have a full time job too, still make time for practice. never give up your dream man. for me, it's not really about becoming a musician, but about being a "recording artist". so many "no-talent" bands are awesome and all they had was a little drive to put out a record and people listened to it.
i am a poet and an artist

i don't wanna worry about dyin'
i just wanna worry about sunshine girls

achan1058
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:50 pm UTC

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby achan1058 » Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:37 am UTC

EduardoLeon wrote:My main strengths are music theory (because I'm mathematically inclined, and music theory is mostly arithmetic modulo 12, setting an arbitrary note (the tonic) as zero) and absolute pitch (I don't know where I got this from, nobody in my family has absolute pitch).
I am quite sure absolute pitch is not genetic or anything like that, and can be acquired.

User avatar
psychosomaticism
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:01 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby psychosomaticism » Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:51 am UTC

achan1058 wrote:
EduardoLeon wrote:My main strengths are music theory (because I'm mathematically inclined, and music theory is mostly arithmetic modulo 12, setting an arbitrary note (the tonic) as zero) and absolute pitch (I don't know where I got this from, nobody in my family has absolute pitch).
I am quite sure absolute pitch is not genetic or anything like that, and can be acquired.


I have heard that brain plasticity for learning perfect pitch is found more in youth, and not easily attained in adulthood. Then again, I don't know how much I believe that, as a lot of things can be learned after high school. That being said, I should think that learning in adulthood would require more cognition and less passive learning (ie. by immersion).

As for myself, I fall into the 'didn't learn music in school but wanted to' category, and am slowly learning the basics now to play guitar, especially in order to improvise and get away from tabs. If anyone is/was in the same boat and has any pointers for guitar theory (especially websites), would be appreciated.

User avatar
Masily box
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:01 am UTC

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby Masily box » Fri Oct 23, 2009 3:00 am UTC

EduardoLeon wrote:music theory is mostly arithmetic modulo 12


I wouldn't say mostly. Certainly there's a lot of interesting stuff to be said by equating the pitch-classes w/ Z12, but it's only one modest sub-branch of theory as a whole. (Moreover, if you're going to use math to theorize about music, you can bring in much more heavy machinery than simple arithmetic.)

User avatar
scrt_rbt_agnt
douche bag
Posts: 865
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:48 pm UTC
Location: the great secrets of space
Contact:

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby scrt_rbt_agnt » Fri Oct 23, 2009 3:19 am UTC

psychosomaticism wrote:As for myself, I fall into the 'didn't learn music in school but wanted to' category, and am slowly learning the basics now to play guitar, especially in order to improvise and get away from tabs. If anyone is/was in the same boat and has any pointers for guitar theory (especially websites), would be appreciated.


i still can't play guitar very well because i lack skill, but i think an understanding of chords and scales is pretty important especially for improvising. scales will let you know what type of notes sound good with each other. memorizing them is tedious and needs practice but once you've got them down you can rip out guitar solos like no-one's business. also, if you learn the notes and not just the "shapes" on the fret, you can use it for other instruments too. i've never bothered to learn the theory behind chords, but they're important to know too. this is also memorizing stuff, but i found the chords to be much easier than the scales.

i mostly lack a good sense of rhythm, so you should try for that too.

also, man there are tons of websites that show the shapes for all sorts of chords and scales but it's better just to buy a book so you don't have to have the computer on when you're playing your instrument.
i am a poet and an artist

i don't wanna worry about dyin'
i just wanna worry about sunshine girls

EduardoLeon
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:26 am UTC
Location: Lima, Perú
Contact:

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby EduardoLeon » Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:33 pm UTC

achan1058 wrote:I am quite sure absolute pitch is not genetic or anything like that, and can be acquired.


What is weird is that I didn't intentionally acquire it. When I started learning how to play the notes and chords, some subconscious part of me memorized how they sound.

Masily box wrote:I wouldn't say mostly. Certainly there's a lot of interesting stuff to be said by equating the pitch-classes w/ Z12, but it's only one modest sub-branch of theory as a whole. (Moreover, if you're going to use math to theorize about music, you can bring in much more heavy machinery than simple arithmetic.)


I like to say music theory is transposition-invariant. :) But besides that, I don't do that much mathematical reasoning when I write music, and I definitely don't do any when I play it. I just *know* which notes sound good, especially when I improvise, even when I'm playing in some weird scale like the whole step scale (the one that starts at B in the left hand, the one that starts at C in the right hand, just to make it interesting).

scrt_rbt_agnt wrote:i still can't play guitar very well because i lack skill, but i think an understanding of chords and scales is pretty important especially for improvising. scales will let you know what type of notes sound good with each other. memorizing them is tedious and needs practice but once you've got them down you can rip out guitar solos like no-one's business.


Slow, steady improvements are better than fast improvements that must stop sometime not too far from now. Being myself a lame guitarist, I don't know what you should learn next, but, as in anything, ensure that your learning path is slow enough (but not too slow!) in order for you to get a solid foundation.

scrt_rbt_agnt wrote:also, if you learn the notes and not just the "shapes" on the fret, you can use it for other instruments too. i've never bothered to learn the theory behind chords, but they're important to know too. this is also memorizing stuff, but i found the chords to be much easier than the scales.


Music theory is always about the relative positions of notes. What applies to C and the F just above it, also applies to A and the D above it. (And, in general, it applies to any note and the note exactly 5 semitones/frets above it.) Since there are only 12 semitones in an octave and then you start repeating those semitones octaves higher and lower, it can't be too much to memorize.

Spoiler:
Generic example: Let's take a generic major chord:
Tonic, Tonic + 4 semitones (major 3rd), Tonic + 7 semitones (perfect 5th)

You could transpose the 5th one octave down, and you'd get:
Tonic - 5 semitones (perfect 5th), Tonic, Tonic + 4 semitones (major 3rd)

You can have many "copies" of the same note in the same chord:
Tonic - 5 semitones (perfect 5th), Tonic, Tonic + 4 semitones (major 3rd), Tonic + 7 semitones (perfect 5th)

And this is pretty much how chords are built. In the particular case of the guitar, the only additional constraint is that it must be physically possible for the left hand to press the required frets.

Concrete example: Let's take G major. (I'll use the string-fret notation: For example, 6-3 means sixth string, third fret; 2-0 means don't press any fret in the second string. I don't know if someone else has come up with that yet, but I haven't seen it on the Internet.)
(G) 6-3, (B) 5-2, (D) 4-0, (G) 3-0, (D) 2-3, (G) 1-3
T, T+4, T+7, T+12, T+19, T+24

G is the tonic, B is the major 3rd, D is the perfect 5th.

Of course, not all chords are major, but you get the idea.
Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein!

achan1058
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:50 pm UTC

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby achan1058 » Fri Oct 23, 2009 3:26 pm UTC

EduardoLeon wrote:I like to say music theory is transposition-invariant. :)
Not when you are trying to write your initials with it......

EduardoLeon
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:26 am UTC
Location: Lima, Perú
Contact:

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby EduardoLeon » Fri Oct 23, 2009 3:45 pm UTC

achan1058 wrote:
EduardoLeon wrote:I like to say music theory is transposition-invariant. :)
Not when you are trying to write your initials with it......
What do you mean exactly?
Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein!

User avatar
Various Varieties
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:24 pm UTC

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby Various Varieties » Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:53 pm UTC

EduardoLeon wrote:
achan1058 wrote:Not when you are trying to write your initials with it......
What do you mean exactly?

I think he's referring to JS Bach:
Wikipedia wrote:The final work Bach completed was a chorale prelude for organ, dictated to his son-in-law, Johann Altnikol, from his deathbed. Entitled Vor deinen Thron tret ich hiermit (Before thy throne I now appear, BWV 668a); when the notes on the three staves of the final cadence are counted and mapped onto the Roman alphabet, the initials "JSB" are found.

achan1058
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:50 pm UTC

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby achan1058 » Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:54 pm UTC

Yes, I am referring to that kind of idea, though was thinking of Shostakovich, who have written his initials DSCH into his piece. (repeatedly, in a fanatical manner)

User avatar
Masily box
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:01 am UTC

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby Masily box » Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:29 pm UTC

The more well-known Bach example is actually quite similar to the Shosty one: Bach famously based a fugue subject on the notes BACH (where B is the German name for B-flat, and H the German name for B-natural). I'm not quite sure I understand what the Wikipedia quote is trying to convey.

More generally, you could say that music is transposition-invariant only to the extent that you conceive it to be so. :D For people with perfect pitch, it isn't. For instrumentalists, it certainly isn't: even on the (fairly egalitarian) piano, the different fingerings for various scales mean that different key sigs will feel different.

(But, of course, your real point--that most theoretical constructs are actually about intervals rather than pitches--is well taken. Some theorists like to take a step farther and say that music is primarily about transformations (elements of a mathematical group) rather than objects.)

User avatar
PlayingMonkey
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:45 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere but not here
Contact:

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby PlayingMonkey » Sun Oct 25, 2009 3:00 pm UTC

achan1058 wrote:Yes, I am referring to that kind of idea, though was thinking of Shostakovich, who have written his initials DSCH into his piece. (repeatedly, in a fanatical manner)


Plenty of other composers have also done this... I think Bartok did it as well but I could be wrong. Been a while since I studied this.

I forget if perfect pitch is genetic or not. I have good intonation, though I'm always a half step off when i try and name pitches. This is probably because I started learning on a Bb instrument instead of C, so yes, perfect pitch can be learned. Also since I started really young I guess my mind was molded to play music? Who knows.
I require something interesting here. Alas, I have no intelligence or patience to deal with it.

Quibop

Read my ridiculous blog http://randomlyevolving.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Phrozt
Posts: 465
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:27 pm UTC

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby Phrozt » Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:27 pm UTC

I'm actually trying to learn drums right now. The majority of what I'm doing is listening by ear, and my only real background is Rock Band, lol.

However, I received some training material as a present that I'm also going through: http://www.learnandmaster.com/drums/

It's pretty nice, especially for someone who is already out of school and can't take those classes "professionally" so to speak.

User avatar
Gizzmo0815
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby Gizzmo0815 » Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:21 pm UTC

G'day,

I'm a recording hobbyist. In other words, I play music, love my guitar, thoroughly enjoy singing, and genuinely enjoy the art of sound. Again, like many others I assume, I've picked up a lot of rather fancy equipment along the way and have learned, to some degree, a lot about how to record and generally make things sound pretty good.

My problem is that I've recently been going through a bout of...disillusionment, for lack of a better term. I often find myself sitting in my little home studio belting out tunes and tones and then wondering what it's all for? Am I wasting my time? Money?

Of course the standard answer from many will likely be something along the lines of "If it makes you happy then no you're not wasting anything." Which I completely agree with, but I wonder what my future looks like as a musician. Let's be frank, I don't have the time to put days and weeks into my work. I can typically devote my after-work, after-family time to it and that's pretty limited, but I do have talent. People like to listen to me. I've packed small buildings of beer drinkin' song-lovers and made them sing along, so I know there's at least a small audience for what I do. I just know that I'm never going to be a "professional musician"...but where does that leave me?

I DO, however, want to expand and look into other areas that might allow me a little income (and by income I mean money to buy new equipment for myself, not income to sustain a family, I've already got that covered) for the relatively hard work that I put into this hobby.

Not that I don't thoroughly enjoy what I do just for the sake of doing it, but the satisfaction of making a buck or two would lend some legitimacy to my hobby...make me feel like it's worth all of the effort and time that I dedicate to it. However, having said that, I also freely admit that I have no professional training in either audio engineering, or recording, so I have no fancy certificate to hang on my wall for prospective customers to admire. I do have a rather extensive musical background, from 5th grade through college, but it wasn't my primary degree (that's political science!). So what ELSE can I do? Or am I just a hobbyist and should I be happy with that?

And that...in a nutshell is the current state of my musical quest. Any thoughts?

Cheers!
Life is "trying things to see if they work".
-Ray Bradbury

User avatar
scrt_rbt_agnt
douche bag
Posts: 865
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:48 pm UTC
Location: the great secrets of space
Contact:

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby scrt_rbt_agnt » Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:59 pm UTC

if you play covers and blues-rock you could probably find a regular bar-gig in no time. they pay OK and there's always room for tips. also, you could be a street musician. those guys actually rake in quite a bit of cash for a while day of playing. you might be able to save a little doing it for a few hours. check with your local city council to see if you need a license to do that sort of thing.

i mostly am eventually looking for some sort of critical acclaim. once i get something published, i believe i have enough connects in new york to get someone important interested. i don't plan on making any money being in the music business and i mostly do it for my own enjoyment. i love the rush of playing for an audience who didn't come to see me and is surprised by what they hear. since i mostly do experimental stuff (see: flaming lips, oneida) with one other person, it can be very rewarding.
i am a poet and an artist

i don't wanna worry about dyin'
i just wanna worry about sunshine girls

User avatar
diotimajsh
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:10 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby diotimajsh » Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:07 am UTC

Well, Charles Ives spent his time as an insurance executive, and he managed to become one of the most prominent composers of the 20th century. (Of course, the critical acclaim came after his death. And he did have formal music training, for what that's worth.)

Are you hoping to make money doing mixing/audio-engineering work for people, or are you talking about getting paying gigs somewhere? The latter should be pretty attainable, even if you're not a professional musician. My dad has played paying jazz gigs for a rather long time at various restaurants and wine-tasting events, even though music is not his full-time occupation.

The former, I dunno. From all I hear, earning money as an audio engineer can be pretty difficult. Not having a degree isn't a bad thing if you've got a good enough reputation, but then, how do build that reputation in the first place? (I, for one, do not know.)

Another thought is, maybe you can sell sheet music (or lead sheets, guitar tabs, whatever) of your own songs. The hard part there will be getting it out to the right people. You might try looking into this book, How to Promote Your Music Successfully on the Internet, which outlines some strategies for getting music sold, both for albums and written music. (Warning about this book, easily the first half of it is probably useless to anyone who's already a reasonably net-savvy person, which I expect you probably are, since you're on this forum. That said, it does offer some concrete help later on. Another caution is that I do think it's a bit overpriced, in spite of the author's claims to the contrary.. ah well.)
Osha wrote:Foolish Patriarchy! Your feeble attempts at social pressure have no effect on my invincible awesomeness! Bwahahahaa


Blog type thing

User avatar
scrt_rbt_agnt
douche bag
Posts: 865
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:48 pm UTC
Location: the great secrets of space
Contact:

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby scrt_rbt_agnt » Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:26 am UTC

making money mixing/engineering is easy. all you have to do is record desperate 15 year olds for a cheap price and tell them they sound great. a guy next to my old practice space was making a living on doing this. recording by the hour for cheap with crappy equipment and the only end result being a CDR with some half-ass recordings on it that were mixed terribly.

i did not like this gentleman.
i am a poet and an artist

i don't wanna worry about dyin'
i just wanna worry about sunshine girls

User avatar
sam.rem
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:43 am UTC
Location: White Rock, BC, Canada
Contact:

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby sam.rem » Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:48 pm UTC

Gizzmo0815 wrote:Not that I don't thoroughly enjoy what I do just for the sake of doing it, but the satisfaction of making a buck or two would lend some legitimacy to my hobby...make me feel like it's worth all of the effort and time that I dedicate to it. However, having said that, I also freely admit that I have no professional training in either audio engineering, or recording, so I have no fancy certificate to hang on my wall for prospective customers to admire. I do have a rather extensive musical background, from 5th grade through college, but it wasn't my primary degree (that's political science!). So what ELSE can I do? Or am I just a hobbyist and should I be happy with that?


I agree with scrt_rbt_agnt. A great way to continue your love for music and starting to expand into a more professional setting is to start gigging at local bars or coffee shops, playing of course during weekends. Open-mic nights are also a great way to start having your music heard by other musicians.

A great way to look for other musicians near you to form a band is craigslist. :D

From my perspective (an 18-year-old who's never had a job other than being a musician), should being solely a musician not work out for me, I plan on getting my degree and playing music on the side during weekends. It sounds like this might be the kind of situation that you're in.

I also have a friend (fellow musician friend) who's 50-something, owns a prospering business, works 6 days a week, but sets aside time to rehearse with his band and book shows every once in a while.

What I mean to say with that is, it's totally possible to keep your job and play music like a professional.
I don't read over the stuff I type on forums. It's mostly just a stream of consciousness. Sorry.

Sam and Luke
Follow me on Twitter!

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby Dream » Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:38 pm UTC

scrt_rbt_agnt wrote:making money mixing/engineering is easy. all you have to do is record desperate 15 year olds for a cheap price and tell them they sound great. a guy next to my old practice space was making a living on doing this. recording by the hour for cheap with crappy equipment and the only end result being a CDR with some half-ass recordings on it that were mixed terribly.

i did not like this gentleman.

I wound't either. But it doesn't always have to be that way. A decent 8-channel preamp and any soundcard at all with ADAT will give a very good quality signal path, fronted by a drum kit mic set and a few half decent condensers. Give them the original unprocessed tracks at the end of their per-hour session, or that plus a surcharge for basic mixing and mastering. Don't promise anything you can't deliver and there's no reason a few bits of cheap equipment can't pay some bills. If you charge little enough, I wouldn't even have a problem with someone who was unskilled doing this, as long as they were upfront about that.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

bbq
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 5:00 pm UTC

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby bbq » Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:08 pm UTC

I don't study music properly yet (apart from at GCSE level), but I am planning to hopefully go to a music university, perhaps to do a course on composition or something.
niinn.ininniinniininiini.n.iii...ininiiinnninnin.inn.niniininnnn.

Mere Accumulation Of Observational Evidence Does Not Constitute 'Proof'.

User avatar
Antimatter Spork
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: The third planet from the sun.

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby Antimatter Spork » Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:49 am UTC

Masily box wrote:More generally, you could say that music is transposition-invariant only to the extent that you conceive it to be so. :D For people with perfect pitch, it isn't. For instrumentalists, it certainly isn't: even on the (fairly egalitarian) piano, the different fingerings for various scales mean that different key sigs will feel different.

(But, of course, your real point--that most theoretical constructs are actually about intervals rather than pitches--is well taken. Some theorists like to take a step farther and say that music is primarily about transformations (elements of a mathematical group) rather than objects.)

That's only true for equal temperament though. In unequal temperaments, different keys have different intervals, and not all minor sixths are created equal (as they are in equal temperament).


Also a bunch of people are talking about gigs or something in the music major nerd-off thread so I'm just gonna leave this here. Thoughts?

Spoiler:
"Who Cares if You Listen?"
Milton Babbitt, High Fidelity (Feb. 1958)

This article might have been entitled "The Composer as Specialist" or, alternatively, and perhaps less contentiously, "The Composer as Anachronism." For I am concerned with stating an attitude towards the indisputable facts of the status and condition of the composer of what we will, for the moment, designate as "serious," "advanced," contemporary music. his composer expends an enormous amount of time and energy- and, usually, considerable money- on the creation of a commodity which has little, no, or negative commodity value. e is, in essence, a "vanity" composer. he general public is largely unaware of and uninterested in his music. he majority of performers shun it and resent it. Consequently, the music is little performed, and then primarily at poorly attended concerts before an audience consisting in the main of fellow 'professionals'. t best, the music would appear to be for, of, and by specialists.

Towards this condition of musical and societal "isolation," a variety of attitudes has been expressed, usually with the purpose of assigning blame, often to the music itself, occasionally to critics or performers, and very occasionally to the public. But to assign blame is to imply that this isolation is unnecessary and undesirable. t is my contention that, on the contrary, this condition is not only inevitable, but potentially advantageous for the composer and his music. From my point of view, the composer would do well to consider means of realizing, consolidating, and extending the advantages.

The unprecedented divergence between contemporary serious music and its listeners, on the one hand, and traditional music and its following, on the other, is not accidental and- most probably- not transitory. Rather, it is a result of a half-century of revolution in musical thought, a revolution whose nature and consequences can be compared only with, and in many respects are closely analogous to, those of the mid-nineteenth-century evolution in theoretical physics The immediate and profound effect has been the necessity of the informed musician to reexamine and probe the very foundations of his art. He has been obliged to recognize the possibility, and actuality, of alternatives to what were once regarded as musical absolutes. He lives no longer in a unitary musical universe of "common practice," but in a variety of universes of diverse practice.

This fall from musical innocence is, understandably, as disquieting to some as it is challenging to others, but in any event the process is irreversible; and the music that reflects the full impact of this revolution is, in many significant respects, a truly "new" music, apart from the often highly sophisticated and complex constructive methods of any one composition or group of compositions, the very minimal properties characterizing this body of music are the sources of its "difficulty," "unintelligibility," and- isolation. In indicating the most general of these properties, I shall make reference to no specific works, since I wish to avoid the independent issue of evaluation. The reader is at liberty to supply his own instances; if he cannot (and, granted the condition under discussion, this is a very real possibility) let him be assured that such music does exist.

First. This music employs a tonal vocabulary which is more "efficient" than that of the music of the past, or its derivatives. This is not necessarily a virtue in itself, but it does make possible a greatly increased number or pitch simultaneities, successions, and relationships. his increase in efficiency necessarily reduces the "redundancy" of the language, and as a result the intelligible communication of the work demands increased accuracy from the transmitter (the performer) and activity from the receiver (the listener). Incidentally, it is this circumstance, among many others, that has created the need for purely electronic media of "performance." More importantly for us, it makes ever heavier demands upon the training of the listener's perceptual capacities.

Second. Along with this increase of meaningful pitch materials, the number of functions associated with each component of the musical event also has been multiplied. In the simplest possible terms. Each such "atomic" event is located in a five-dimensional musical space determined by pitch-class, register, dynamic, duration, and timbre. These five components not only together define the single event, but, in the course of a work, the successive values of each component create an individually coherent structure, frequently in parallel with the corresponding structures created by each of the other components. Inability to perceive and remember precisely the values of any of these components results in a dislocation of the event in the work's musical space, an alternation of its relation to a other events in the work, and-thus-a falsification of the composition's total structure. For example, an incorrectly performed or perceived dynamic value results in destruction of the work's dynamic pattern, but also in false identification of other components of the event (of which this dynamic value is a part) with corresponding components of other events so creating incorrect pitch, registral, timbral, and durational associations. It is this high degree of "determinancy" that most strikingly differentiates such music from, for example, a popular song. A popular song is only very partially determined, since it would appear to retain its germane characteristics under considerable alteration of register, rhythmic texture, dynamics, harmonic structure, timbre, and other qualities.

The preliminary differentiation of musical categories by means of this reasonable and usable criterion of "degree of determinacy" offends those who take it to be a definition of qualitative categories, which-of course-it need not always be. Curiously, their demurrers usually take the familiar form of some such "democratic" counterdefinition as: "There is no such thing as 'serious' and 'popular' music." There is only 'good' and 'bad' music." As a public service, let me offer those who still patiently await the revelation of the criteria of Absolute Good an alternative criterion which possesses, at least, the virtue of immediate and irrefutable applicability: "There is no such thing as 'serious' and 'popular' music. There is only music whose title begins with the letter 'X,' and music whose title does not."

Third, musical compositions of the kind under discussion possess a high degree of contextuality and autonomy. That is, the structural characteristics of a given work are less representative of a general class of characteristics than they are unique to the individual work itself. Particularly, principles of relatedness, upon which depends immediate coherence of continuity, are more likely to evolve in the course of the work than to be derived from generalized assumptions. Here again greater and new demands are made upon the perceptual and conceptual abilities of the listener.

Fourth, and finally. Although in many fundamental respects this music is "new," it often also represents a vast extension of the methods of other musics, derived from a considered and extensive knowledge of their dynamic principles. For, concomitant with the "revolution in music," perhaps even an integral aspect thereof, has been the development of analytical theory, concerned with the systematic formulation of such principles to the end of greater efficiency, economy, and understanding. Compositions so rooted necessarily ask comparable knowledge and experience from the listener. Like all communication, this music presupposes a suitably equipped receptor. am aware that "tradition" has it that the lay listener, by virtue of some undefined, transcendental faculty, always is able to arrive at a musical judgment absolute in its wisdom if not always permanent in its validity. regret my inability to accord this declaration of faith the respect due its advanced age.

Deviation from this tradition is bound to dismiss the contemporary music of which I have been talking into "isolation." Nor do I see how or why the situation should be otherwise. Why should the layman be other than bored and puzzled by what he is unable to understand, music or anything else? It is only the translation of this boredom and puzzlement into resentment and denunciation that seems to me indefensible. After all, the public does have its own music, its ubiquitous music: music to eat by, to read by, to dance by, and to be impressed by. Why refuse to recognize the possibility that contemporary music has reached a stage long since attained by other forms of activity? The time has passed when the normally well-educated man without special preparation could understand the most advanced work in, for example, mathematics, philosophy, and physics. Advanced music, to the extent that it reflects the knowledge and originality of the informed composer, scarcely can be expected to appear more intelligible than these arts and sciences to the person whose musical education usually has been even less extensive than his background in other fields. But to this, a double standard is invoked, with the words music is music," implying also that "music is just music." Why not, then, equate the activities of the radio repairman with those of the theoretical physicist, on the basis of the dictum that "physics is physics." It is not difficult to find statements like the following, from the New York Times of September 8, 1 957: "The scientific level of the conference is so high… that there are in the world only 120 mathematicians specializing in the field who could contribute." Specialized music on the other hand, far from signifying "height" of musical level, has been charged with "decadence," even as evidence of an insidious "conspiracy."

It often has been remarked that only in politics and the "arts" does the layman regard himself as an expert, with the right to have his opinion heard. In the realm of politics he knows that this right, in the form of a vote, is guaranteed by fiat. Comparably, in the realm of public music, the concertgoer is secure in the knowledge that the amenities of concert going protect his firmly stated "I didn't like it" from further scrutiny. Imagine, if you can, a layman chancing upon a lecture on "Pointwise Periodic Homeomorphisms." At the conclusion, he announces: "I didn't like it," Social conventions being what they are in such circles, someone might dare inquire: "Why not?" Under duress, our layman discloses precise reasons for his failure to enjoy himself; he found the hall chilly, the lecturer's voice unpleasant, and he was suffering the digestive aftermath of a poor dinner. His interlocutor understandably disqualifies these reasons as irrelevant to the content and value of the lecture, and the development of mathematics is left undisturbed. If the concertgoer is at all versed in the ways of musical lifesmanship, he also will offer reasons for his "I didn't like it" - in the form of assertions that the work in question is "inexpressive," "undramatic," "lacking in poetry," etc., etc., tapping that store of vacuous equivalents hallowed by time for: "I don't like it, and I cannot or will not state why." The concertgoer's critical authority is established beyond the possibility of further inquiry. Certainly he is not responsible for the circumstance that musical discourse is a never-never land of semantic confusion, the last resting place of all those verbal and formal fallacies, those hoary dualisms that have been banished from rational discourse Perhaps he has read, in a widely consulted and respected book on the history of music, the following: "to call him (Tchaikovsky) the 'modern Russian Beethoven' is footless, Beethoven being patently neither modern nor Russian…" Or, the following, by an eminent "nonanalytic" philosopher: "The music of Lourie' is an ontological music... It is born in the singular roots of being, the nearest possible juncture of the soul and the spirit…" How unexceptionable the verbal peccadilloes of the average concertgoer appear beside these masterful models. Or, perhaps, in search of "real" authority, he has acquired his critical vocabulary from the pronouncements of officially "eminent" composers, whose eminence, in turn, is founded largely upon just such assertions as the concertgoer has learned to regurgitate. This cycle is of slight moment in a world where circularity is one of the norms of criticism. Composers (and performers), wittingly or unwittingly assuming the character of "talented children" and "inspired idiots" generally ascribed to them, are singularly adept at the conversion of personal tastes into general principles. Music they do not like is "not music," composers whose music they do not like are "not composers

In search of what to think and how to say it, the layman may turn to newspapers and magazines. Here he finds conclusive evidence for the proposition that "music is music." The science editor of such publications contents himself with straightforward reporting, usually news of the "factual" sciences; books and articles not intended for popular consumption are not reviewed. Whatever the reason, such matters are left to professional journals. The music critic admits no comparable differentiation. We may feel, with some justice, that music which presents itself in the market place of the concert hall automatically offers itself to public approval or disapproval. We may feel, again with some justice, that to omit the expected criticism of the "advanced" work would be to do the composer an injustice in his assumed quest for, if nothing else, public notice and "professional recognition." The critic, at least to this extent, is himself a victim of the leveling of categories.

Here, then, are some of the factors determining the climate of the public world of music. Perhaps we should not have overlooked those pockets of "power" where prizes, awards, and commissions are dispensed, where music is adjudged guilty, not only without the right to be confronted by its accuser, but without the right to be confronted by the accusations. Or those well-meaning souls who exhort the public "just to listen to more contemporary music," apparently on the theory that familiarity breeds passive acceptance. Or those, often the same well-meaning souls, who remind the composer of his "obligation to the public," while the public's obligation to the composer is fulfilled, manifestly, by mere physical presence in the concert hall or before loudspeaker or- more authoritatively- by committing to memory the numbers of phonograph and amplifier models. Or the intricate social world within this musical world where the salon becomes bazaar, and music itself becomes an ingredient of verbal canapés for cocktail conversation.

I say all this not to present a picture of a virtuous music in a sinful world, but to point up the problems of a special music in an alien and inapposite world. And so, I dare suggest that the composer would do himself and his music an immediate and eventual service by total, resolute, and voluntary withdrawal from this public world to one of private performance and electronic media, with its very real possibility of complete elimination of the public and social aspects of musical composition. By so doing, the separation between the domains would be defined beyond any possibility of confusion of categories, and the composer would be free to pursue a private life of professional achievement, as opposed to a public life of unprofessional compromise and exhibitionism

But how, it may be asked, will this serve to secure the means of survival or the composer and his music? One answer is that after all such a private life is what the university provides the scholar and the scientist. It is only proper that the university, which-significantly-has provided so many contemporary composers with their professional training and general education, should provide a home for the "complex," "difficult," and "problematical" in music. Indeed, the process has begun; and if it appears to proceed too slowly, I take consolation in the knowledge that in this respect, too, music seems to be in historically retarded parallel with now sacrosanct fields of endeavor. In E. T. Bell's Men of Mathematics, we read: "In the eighteenth century the universities were not the principal centers of research in Europe. hey might have become such sooner than they did but for the classical tradition and its understandable hostility to science. Mathematics was close enough to antiquity to be respectable, but physics, being more recent, was suspect. Further, a mathematician in a university of the time would have been expected to put much of his effort on elementary teaching; his research, if any, would have been an unprofitable luxury..." A simple substitution of "musical composition" for "research," of "academic" for "classical," of "music" for "physics," and of "composer" for "mathematician," provides a strikingly accurate picture of the current situation. And as long as the confusion I have described continues to exist, how can the university and its community assume other than that the composer welcomes and courts public competition with the historically certified products of the past, and the commercially certified products of the present?

Perhaps for the same reason, the various institutes of advanced research and the large majority of foundations have disregarded this music's need for means of survival. I do not wish to appear to obscure the obvious differences between musical composition and scholarly research, although it can be contended that these differences are no more fundamental than the differences among the various fields of study. I do question whether these differences, by their nature, justify the denial to music's development of assistance granted these other fields. Immediate "practical" applicability (which may be said to have its musical analogue in "immediate extensibility of a compositional technique") is certainly not a necessary condition for the support of scientific research. And if it be contended that such research is so supported because in the past it has yielded eventual applications, one can counter with, for example, the music of Anton Webern, which during the composer's lifetime was regarded (to the very limited extent that it was regarded at all) as the ultimate in hermetic, specialized, and idiosyncratic composition; today, some dozen years after the composer's death, his complete works have been recorded by a major record company, primarily- I suspect- as a result of the enormous influence this music has had on the postwar, nonpopular, musical world. I doubt that scientific research is any more secure against predictions of ultimate significance than is musical composition. Finally, if it be contended that research, even in its least "practical" phases, contributes to the sum of knowledge in the particular realm, what possibly can contribute more to our knowledge of music than a genuinely original composition?

Granting to music the position accorded other arts and sciences promises the sole substantial means of survival for the music I have been describing. Admittedly, if this music is not supported, the whistling repertory of the man in the street will be little affected, the concert-going activity of the conspicuous consumer of musical culture will be little disturbed. But music will cease to evolve, and, in that important sense, will cease to live.
Albert Schweitzer wrote:There are two means of refuge from the misery of life — music and cats.

User avatar
Masily box
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:01 am UTC

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby Masily box » Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:54 am UTC

I think you mistook my meaning. I was contending that musical structures are invariant under transposition only in a very limited context (of which equal temperament is a significant part).

As for Babbit, the title "Who cares if you listen?" was not his own. Basically, he's just pointing out that music can serve many different aesthetic goals, and arguing against the offhand dismissal of one of those goals. Even if most people find Babbit's music to be too complex or esoteric to appreciate, why should that detract from the fact that some people find it more satisfying than other music that was being produced? (Of course, interwoven with this is his desire for the scientificization of music, which is not a terribly popular view nowadays, but it was a big part of the musical culture at the time, and like any other era's stylistic preferences, it's an interesting combination of fashion drift and response to broader social trends.)

Do I personally like Babbit's music? No, but I love plenty of other composers (Schoenberg--gorgeous) who are generally dismissed as crazy modernists. But I do think that he suggests an interesting variety of aesthetic experience, and that's certainly a valid thing for an artist to be doing (especially in the 20th century, which in some circles made the discovery of new aesthetics the primary good of art).

User avatar
diotimajsh
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:10 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby diotimajsh » Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:28 am UTC

My general take is that, really, people should create/perform/listen to the music they enjoy for whatever reason. I don't have any problem with composers who prefer writing music for a select audience, nor with composers who like to write to the public at large. (Although, yes, it's hard to respect pop songwriters in the same way as other composers, no matter how difficult it may be to craft a moving pop song).

The part I might take issue with is if Babbitt means to advocate teaching and pursuing "serious" music to the neglect of other forms at all universities. I do think there is value to be had from studying "inaccessible" contemporary music, and certainly I'm not going to try to discourage other people from making it their specialty. But, from a practical standpoint, we should recognize that the majority of students desiring a musical education may very well have more mainstream interests, and so it would be a good thing to accommodate that. Babbitt's analogy to mathematics, physics, and philosophy is all very well, but music tends to be much more personal and emotional for many people. With math et all, there is a cerebral component first and foremost that you need to tackle in order to even begin appreciating them, but music "hits the heart" first (if I may use such a cheesy phrase): cerebral appreciation comes later, and for some people, that just isn't what they want to get out of it at all.

All that said, I don't think in the article that Babbitt did explicitly endorse such an exclusive approach (though his elitist attitude may have implied it); so, that part of my response is more hypothetical than anything.
Osha wrote:Foolish Patriarchy! Your feeble attempts at social pressure have no effect on my invincible awesomeness! Bwahahahaa


Blog type thing

User avatar
Masily box
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:01 am UTC

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby Masily box » Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:24 pm UTC

Well, naturally Babbitt is going to advocate devoting all of a university's resources to his own form of music: in the competition for resources, people tend to be self-interested. But, actually, a couple points to augment his argument: "serious" music is the kind of music that requires study more than popular mainstream music. If appreciating (or composing like) the Beatles doesn't require a university degree, why should universities dedicate programs to such a thing? More generally, universities are built on an elitist model: if Babbitt-style music is the vanguard of musical high-culture, that's the kind of thing that a university's music program should be dedicated to. (The elitist function of universities was far more true in Babbitt's day than it is now, but really the middlebrow-ization of the contemporary university has kind of led to a crisis in higher education. We might be better off going back to an older model of what universities are for.)

(In a similar vein, in your comment that "that the majority of students desiring a musical education may very well have more mainstream interests," I detect the contemporary consumer-oriented model of what colleges should be up to: accommodating students' desires rather than telling them what they ought to know. Not that this is wrong--most people these days agree with you--but you ought to recognize that it belongs to a specific school of thought as to what universities are for.)

diotimajsh wrote:but music tends to be much more personal and emotional for many people. With math et all, there is a cerebral component first and foremost that you need to tackle in order to even begin appreciating them, but music "hits the heart" first (if I may use such a cheesy phrase): cerebral appreciation comes later, and for some people, that just isn't what they want to get out of it at all.


This is true enough of the kinds of music that you're probably thinking about (Beethoven, Radiohead, etc.), but remember that not all things that we describe as "music" exist for the same goals. Many pieces by John Cage aren't meant to "hit the heart" first (or at all), nor are many pieces of early minimalism, nor (probably) are Babbitt's compositions. To categorically state that "music hits the heart first" is to dismiss as music the kinds of pieces that don't make that their primary goal.

User avatar
diotimajsh
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:10 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby diotimajsh » Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:34 am UTC

Masily box wrote:If appreciating (or composing like) the Beatles doesn't require a university degree, why should universities dedicate programs to such a thing? More generally, universities are built on an elitist model: if Babbitt-style music is the vanguard of musical high-culture, that's the kind of thing that a university's music program should be dedicated to.
Well hey, composing like Stravinsky and Rimsky-Korsakov doesn't require a university degree, at least judging by their own lives. They both received private composition lessons (the former from the latter, in fact) and had little formal academic education.

Next, appreciation. Appreciating Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, and the majority of art music up until this century does not require a university degree: in comparison to pop music, sure, it's clear which the public favors. But there are many, many, many people who enjoy music composed in the classical tradition without any real classical education. Should we count that against the history of western music up to this point, and dismiss it because it's already too easy to appreciate?

But more important than all of that, note the premise you're implicitly endorsing: universities should only teach/propagate that which cannot be learned elsewhere. A bit of an absurd contention. [EDIT: changed my wording slightly here to sound less patronizing.] With very few exceptions, anything that can be learned in a university can be learned out of it. Would you also recommend that colleges abandon the teaching of foreign languages, because these can be learned (often more successfully) outside of them?

For a more relevant example, look to the other arts. Appreciating and creating literature, poetry, visual art, theater productions, dance, and films at exceptionally high levels does not necessarily require a university education in those subjects either: consider Marcel Duchamp (only attended academy for one year where he slacked off), Picasso, William Carlos Williams (medical school, did not study poetry formally), Emily Dickinson, Man Ray, Piet Mondrian (when he first arrived at a formal institution he started teaching, not taking classes), Orson Welles, Fellini (law school, and anyway did not attend his classes), Hemmingway, Gabriel García Márquez (studied law), Faulkner (dropped out of high school and then college after a year), Walt Whitman -- the list goes on, obviously. Should these fields all get the academic axe too because they don't require formal education?

Masily box wrote:This is true enough of the kinds of music that you're probably thinking about (Beethoven, Radiohead, etc.), but remember that not all things that we describe as "music" exist for the same goals. Many pieces by John Cage aren't meant to "hit the heart" first (or at all), nor are many pieces of early minimalism, nor (probably) are Babbitt's compositions. To categorically state that "music hits the heart first" is to dismiss as music the kinds of pieces that don't make that their primary goal.
I believe you misunderstood me. My statement "music hits the heart first" was meant to apply to a group of people, not universally: note in the immediately prior sentence I said, "but music tends to be much more personal and emotional for many people" (emphasis added). "Music hits the heart first" was an amplification of that. These are exactly the type of people who usually do not appreciate "conceptual music".

(A bit of a side issue, but biologically speaking, children do develop the capacity to appreciate music in an intuitive sense before they can appreciate it intellectually, so I believe my statement is roughly categorically true in that regard.)
Osha wrote:Foolish Patriarchy! Your feeble attempts at social pressure have no effect on my invincible awesomeness! Bwahahahaa


Blog type thing

Minnie_Mouse
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:21 am UTC
Location: Sector 7 Slums

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby Minnie_Mouse » Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:09 am UTC

I spent 1 month studying and memorizing the major and minor piano scales and chords. I almost have them completely memorized but for the ones that I don't have memorized I just use the formulas to help me. I still can't play the piano that well but it's become easier for me to produce music.

User avatar
modularblues
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 8:33 am UTC
Location: Escher's Wonderland
Contact:

Re: Studying Music 2.0

Postby modularblues » Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:23 am UTC

I was a very hardcore musician before college. Then my time got gobbled up by engineering courses. Although I started composing in college... none very extensive though, just a couple of music theory classes.


Return to “Music”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests